Global Cooling

Climate chaos? Don't believe it

This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect. Next week, I'll demonstrate the atrocious economic, political and environmental cost of the high-tax, zero-freedom, bureaucratic centralism implicit in Stern's report; I'll compare the global-warming scare with previous sci-fi alarums; and I'll show how the environmentalists' "precautionary principle" (get the state to interfere now, just in case) is killing people.

todd

Take the arguments over "irregardless" to http://pedantic.antics.org in the future and stay on topic here. DaveScot

Davescot, Thanks, I've labelled the establishment press 'The OJ Press Corps', it is a constant reminder shallow intellects deliver news to the equally deep consumers. todd

What is it that makes people attack first as opposed to just taking the time to look something up for themselves? HodorH: Hmm, I never thought of asking for a reference as an attack. It's the way you did it that was indicative of an attacking style. HodorH: I guess next time you ask me for a reference, as you have in the past, I’ll consider it an attack and respond as appropriate, rather than trying to support my assertion. If finding the data requested is as easy as finding the answer to the questions you asked me in comment #2 above I would expect you to either not respond or respond with something sarcastic. What Jehu’s post does is to show we really don’t have predictive power- the last two years are evidence of this. HodorH: My knowledge of climatology and hurricane prediction is certainly limited, but I think this is an exaggeration. It could be. I have been known to do that. However, from Wikipedia on the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane season:

A number of storms that formed in 2005 exhibited unusual behavior and challenged forecasters' ability to make correct predictions.

2005's final pre-season prediction: 15 named storms, 8 hurricanes, and 4 major hurricanes Actual: 28 named storms, 15 hurricanes, 7 major 2006 pre-season prediction: 17 named storms, 9 hurricanes, 5 major 2006 actual: 9 named, 5 hurricanes, 2 major It at least looks like someone doesn't know what they are doing. Joseph

Joe:

What is it that makes people attack first as opposed to just taking the time to look something up for themselves?

Hmm, I never thought of asking for a reference as an attack. I guess next time you ask me for a reference, as you have in the past, I'll consider it an attack and respond as appropriate, rather than trying to support my assertion.

What Jehu’s post does is to show we really don’t have predictive power- the last two years are evidence of this.

My knowledge of climatology and hurricane prediction is certainly limited, but I think this is an exaggeration. I have a friend who works for a small company that does hurricane predictions, and sells that information to insurance companies. I suppose it's possible the insurance companies are simply foolish to want that information, and I don't know how far ahead the company predicts hurricanes (though I strongly suspect it's a bit more farsighted than weather forecasting). But if hurricane prediction is really without any power, then I'm surprised that companies would be willing to pay for the information, and presumeably use it to maximize their profit margins. HodorH

One thing history has told us, and unfortunately some/most quickly forget, this planet's regional and global climates change, sometimes rapidly, sometimes drastically, irregardless (yes Liz that is a word) of humans. However that does not mean that humans cannot impact the environment. History also tells us that alarism does sell newspapers. And I believe it is this alarmism that is the root of any anti-scientific movement, more-so than any religious fundamentalism could possibly be (that could be stretch). Joseph

Thank you Todd for being a voice of reason. I was hoping more people clicked "more" and read the whole senate report. Maybe they did but don't want to acknowledge it. The mild 2006 hurricane season is just the tip of the iceberg (pun intended) on all the evidence piling up in support of global warming skeptics. Alarmism sells newspapers. Sensationalist reporting at its finest. You won't see that Senate report making the front page of the Times but it should. DaveScot

I don't think those claiming that a global warming crisis is looming are sincere. I think they are more interested in acquiring grant money and political influence via FUD than actually trying to prevent any disaster. If the Global Warmers really believed there was a crisis they be presenting petitions to government agencies, NGOs and every media outlet signed by every credentialed or prominent person in their orbit demanding that the industrial world institute a crash program to replace its coal-fired power plants (about 600 in the U.S.) with nukes. Of course, this hasn't been done. It's a safe bet that global warming is FUD by political power grabbers and academic grant seekers. tribune7

Thank you Charlie- comment #5 is exactly what I was eluding to in my first comment. Jehu's comment, although useful, does not say that the 2006 will be simlar or worse than the 2005 season. What Jehu's post does is to show we really don't have predictive power- the last two years are evidence of this. Well it looks like I had nothing to apologize for- unless I have to apologize for HordorH's inability to use a search engine. What is it that makes people attack first as opposed to just taking the time to look something up for themselves? Joseph

Why also the concern over extinction? Especially from a darwinian perspective!? Extinctions are required for the ongoing march of evolution and have happened whether we are here or not. If 'Nature' produced us, then we are part of nature and anything we produce is also natural. We are all agents of chance, donchaknow, we should do all we can to prove darwin right and force a little environmental selection - see, the polar bears will produce a mutant strain with no fur and gills! Since they already swim in the oceans and their claws do kinda look like pointed fish spines, the environment will select the mutant 'sea bears'! todd

3. Larry Fafarman // Nov 2nd 2006 at 10:29 am The difference is that being wrong on global warming could result in environmental and ecological disaster whereas being wrong on Darwinism would not cause any significant harm. For example, global warming could result in widespread extinctions (e.g., polar bears are drowning because of loss of polar ice and coral reefs are dying because of warmer ocean temperatures) and the flooding of low-lying coastal areas because of melting of polar ice. On the issue of global warming, I think it is better to be safe than sorry.

What if being wrong on global warming results in economic disaster? What if warming yields more crops and more real estate in tropical climates? What if human activity is less a factor than the physics of earth's rotation and nothing we do matters (where warming is concerned)? I think it is better to be safe than sorry and this issue bears serious discussion, not fearful and tremulous predictions such as anyone paying attention has heard for years now, first over 'cooling' now 'warming'. Isn't it ironic the same kind of predictions with nuclear power have left us with bigger coal and gas fired power plants? Drastic and costly action simply isn't needed at this point and will only depress the economies of the rich countries and suppress the growth of the poor ones. todd

It is interesting that the experts predicted that the 2006 hurricane season would be well above average. A psychic yogi made the following prediction.

The hurricane season for 2006 will be just as active as 2005. South Florida is in trouble and Texas will be hit by another Katrina type and it will be a little stronger than Katrina.

http://www.yogavisionaries.com/future.php What does that tell us? The science of long term weather forecasting is no better than witchcraft. Jehu

Thank you, Jehu. Your comment was useful. As for Mr. Gallien, apology accepted. HodorH

HodorH

Forecasts of hurricane activity are issued before each hurricane season by noted hurricane experts Philip J. Klotzbach, Dr. William M. Gray, and their associates at Colorado State University; and separately by NOAA forecasters. Klotzbach's team (formerly led by Dr. Gray) defined the average number of storms per season (1950 to 2000) as 9.6 tropical storms, 5.9 hurricanes, and 2.3 major hurricanes (storms exceeding Category 3 strength in the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale). A normal season, as defined by NOAA, has 6 to 14 named storms, with 4 to 8 of those reaching hurricane strength, and 1 to 3 major hurricanes.[2][3] On December 5, 2005, Klotzbach's team issued its first extended-range forecast for the 2006 season, predicting a well above-average season (17 named storms, 9 hurricanes, 5 of Category 3 or higher). ... A few months later, on April 4, 2006, CSU issued another forecast that reaffirmed the forecast previously made in December. On May 22, 2006, NOAA released their pre-season forecast for the 2006 season. They predicted 13 to 16 named storms, with 8 to 10 becoming hurricanes, and 4 to 6 becoming major hurricanes. On May 31, 2006, Klotzbach's team released their final pre-season forecast for 2006, confirming their previous numbers.

How did it come out? Well instead of 4 to 6 (NOAA) or 5 (CSU) major hurricanes we had 2. Instead of 8 hurricanes (NOAA) or 9 (CSU) we had 5. Insteaed of 13 to 16 named storms (NOAA) or 17 (CSU) we had 9. So the predictions failed completely. By all standards, hurricane activety in 2006 was below the average. Jehu

Does anyone else remember the now failed prediction of a 2006 hurricane season similar or worse than the season of 2005?

HodorH: Why no, Joe, I don’t. If the all-hearing, all-knowing HodorH doesn't remeber then I stand refuted. My apologies for wasting anyone's time. Joseph

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=2006+likely+worse+hurricane+season&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Charlie

This just in: An AOL article says that scientists claimed that the White House prevented them from speaking freely about their research on global warming -- see http://news.aol.com/science/story/_a/scientists-say-white-house-muzzled-them/n20061101234509990002?cid=911 Larry Fafarman

The difference is that being wrong on global warming could result in environmental and ecological disaster whereas being wrong on Darwinism would not cause any significant harm. For example, global warming could result in widespread extinctions (e.g., polar bears are drowning because of loss of polar ice and coral reefs are dying because of warmer ocean temperatures) and the flooding of low-lying coastal areas because of melting of polar ice. On the issue of global warming, I think it is better to be safe than sorry. Larry Fafarman

Does anyone else remember the now failed prediction of a 2006 hurricane season similar or worse than the season of 2005?

Why no, Joe, I don't. Was it a widespread prediction amongst climatologists? Do you have a reference you'd like to share? HodorH

Does anyone else remember the now failed prediction of a 2006 hurricane season similar or worse than the season of 2005? Should humans be more careful about what we do to the planet and its atmosphere? Absolutely Is (false) alarmism the best way to get us to change our ways? Absolutely not Joseph